Rolling Teenpop 2006 Thread

I'd like to see this in context before judging it. I mean, maybe he's just explaining how out of it he is. Or maybe he's explaining that nobody he knows, i.e. is personally acquainted with, has made a record that sounds decent (as opposed to all those decent-sounding records by people he's never met). </grasping at straws>

But it does seem stupid, doesn't it?

I like the song - esp. in the verse where it does a three note figure, then a variation on it but lower in the key, then another variation, still lower, very pretty. But the track has the same Brit sleekness that's often a barrier to my loving likable stuff by Girls Aloud, Rachel Stevens, Kylie, Sugababes, et al. This could reach me more after several plays, perhaps.

(No relation, btw.)

Curiously, given the way the discussion on this thread has gone, my feelings towards the Paris album aren't directed towards the singer as a persona/personality, just as my feelings towards t.A.T.u. aren't directed towards those two Russian girls and my feelings towards Boney M aren't directed towards Liz Mitchell. And I love t.A.T.u. and Boney M. Oddly enough, though I am moved incredibly by Diana Ross songs such as "Love Hangover" and "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" and "Swept Away," once again I'm not focusing those feelings on a personality or persona. This doesn't mean that I think Ross et al. have no input into their music, or that I don't hear a human voice in their singing, or for that matter that I don't have feelings and opinions about Ross et al. from what I know of their personalities/personas. Just that the feelings engendered by the music don't take the form of feelings towards a personality. (And of course this is very much the opposite of what goes on with me in regard to Ashlee, Kelly, and Lindsay. And damned if I know where I am with Hilary. She's a cipher, but that doesn't mean that my feelings aren't in search of some sort of personality there.)
I can't say that I've a good idea why in some instances I hear a personality to take in my feelings and in others I don't.

-- Frank Kogan (edcasua...), August 25th, 2006. (Frank Kogan)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Does anyone have a song-by-song producers list for the album? Allmusic.com specifies songwriters but not producers.)

Stephen Thomas Erlewine:

They come up with a sound that's casually modern and retro with enough heft in its rhythms to sound good at clubs, yet it's designed to be heard outdoors on the sunniest day of the summer. This is exceedingly light music, as sweet and bubbly as a wine spritzer, yet it isn't so frothy that it floats away.

Erlewine is a frog on a bump on a log, and I often think he's wrong, but he's a good critic, because he's willing to be surprised by albums and because he tries to be as articulate as possible about why he likes or dislikes something. In any event, I don't hear Paris the way Erlewine does. It's "light" in the sense of being unassuming and not coming across as trying to communicate anything weighty. But the actual sound is rather thick, layers of overdubbed vocals finding their way to choruses that often enough contain guitar chord upon guitar chord, the dense beauty of the vocals buried headfirst in the guitar thicket. The consistency I spoke of isn't just quality but timbre, different producers using the same strategies (maybe following Hilton's instruction). I don't know another album that has quite this sound. Paris's voice is itself unifying, something of a fuzzy uninflected hum from back in the throat. Compare Paris's Gottwald-written "Nothing In This World" to the Veronicas' Gottwald-written "Everything I'm Not." On "Everything" the singers are up there in the bright high pitch, working you over with ingratiating come-hither/fuck-off vocals. Whereas in "Nothing"'s pretty harmony section, Paris stays down in her comfy burr, relaxing. Not as arresting as the Veronicas, but not as irritating, either.

-- Frank Kogan (edcasua...), August 25th, 2006. (Frank Kogan)

MARY WEISS, lead singer of the Shangri-Las, is recording her first album of new material since 1965 with the Reigning Sound for release on Norton Records, with Billy Miller and Greg Cartwright producing. Mary is selecting from a batch of great new comps from today's most talked-about songwriters including Greg Cartwright, John Felice, Andy Shernoff, Jackie DeShannon and others TBA!

Mary was fifteen years old when she and her sister Elizabeth (Betty) began singing with identical twins Margie and Mary Ann Ganser in their Cambria Heights neighborhood of Queens, New York, as students at Andrew Jackson High School. They soon came to the attention of George "Shadow" Morton and shot into the charts with massive hits on the Red Bird label including Remember (Walking In The Sand), Leader Of The Pack, Give Him A Great Big Kiss, I Can Never Go Home Anymore, Give Us Your Blessings and Out In The Streets.

The Shangri-Las gave a voice to real teenagers, with Mary's explosive lead vocals delivering emotion-packed melodramas that made them one of the most consistently exciting groups of the day.

They were twinpop!

I will point out, though, that their songs were written by real nonteenagers (which doesn't mean they can't have given voice to real teenagers, of course).

There was an ilM thread about this album several months back. Interesting set of songwriters, though it pretty much guarantees a retro sound mixed w/ neogarage-rock. As does the choice of the Reigning Sound as accompaniment, I'd think. Not that she should be going for a contemporary teenpop sound instead, necessarily (she's approx. 56). I'm just afraid that the garagers will put a haze of subcult oldiness around her. If all goes well, maybe there'll be some of the musical tension and ambition of a group like the Gore Gore Girls. After all, the '60s garage sound was part of the overall changes that put groups like the Shangri-Las out of business, and the Gore Gores mix it up in a cantankerous way.

Her current look'd actually work for country, I'd think.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2388/maryweissys8.jpg

I mean, an heiress known best for nightvision porn and reality TV; where's the idol in that?

Lohan has this dramatic backstory to prop up her misadventures and so gain identification, Ashlee has that sweet, underdog thing, The Veronicas twiness provides enough Lacanian reverb to last days, Lily Allen has pluck and cheek.

Paris is just...blank. And, well, skanky. And what archetype are people saying Yes to when buying her stuff?

Thing is, with almost all the Teenpop stars, even more than other genres, the persona is a huge part of the sell, and I think part of what engages us, something which I think has to do, again, with us projecting onto the mirror of the persona some aspect of ourselves.

I'm sorry to sound like a half-assed demi-academic, but I think it works like that. And hence, for me anyway, the total disconnect with Paris--there's so little there there, and what is there is just kinda Eww.

don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past twenty years, really," the 65-year-old rocker said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

But doesn't Bob give a shoutout to Alicia Keyes somewhere on his new album? (which I haven't heard; I think I read that somehwere though.)

Anyway (and hopefully I won't get a weirdassed error message like the last four times I tried to say this), are people kind of saying Paris is the new Samantha Fox, only maybe less voluptuous? Because Samantha definitely made some excellent music, back in her day.

Paris is a mirror, because you have "projected or recognized or gained validation of some aspect of yourself," it's just against a negative or distorted reflection. (Maybe it makes sense that listening to her vocals on the album is like walking through a hall of funhouse
mirrors)

xposts

("Tap That" doesn't seem to be getting any Top 40 airplay yet.)

Level one: Lindsay, Kelly, Liliy, et al, in their way of sunging and in their still images get across a certain sense of drama--not sad-drama, just of some sense of human material.

Then there's the tabloid bio stuff, which is hard to escape on some level.

Then there's the appealing vacuum presented bu assorted Euro-pop people--an emptiness that's intended, iconic or in some other way, essential to the idea.

Then there's Paris. I can imagine a very smart person--and a very meta incarnation of Hilton--utilizing the strange nothing she projects as a very lovely, disturbing thing.

But as she's using the usual route--with the attendant pleasures of good craftmanship--that zero-ness...well, it certainly doesn't add anything. And again, any awareness of her exploits--probably too scolding a word--adds a quesiness (for me at least.)

Still, I've written a few parapgraphs about thiss brand of nothjing so there must be something there.

I may yet hear a strong "Paris" personality in her music; too soon to tell. And I certainly don't think there'd be anything wrong in my letting what I know of her life contribute to what I feel when I hear the music. My guess is that no one on this thread or the Paris thread really has followed Paris that closely (the Sextape Paris, the Tabloid Paris, the Reality Show Paris, or the real-life Paris).

I hear a similiar thing when I listen to the album. Even when it seems like the music is subverting my assumptions about Hilton, I wonder who has written the script. That, in of itself, wouldn't determine whether I like the album. I dislike it - but because of the sounds coming from my speakers. Nonetheless, the persona is inseperable from the album - and I feel manipulated, which is disasterious if Hilton is trying to liberate herself from this carefully plotted career.

Along the same lines, is it unthinkable that Hilton wouldn't read Pynchon on her own, or even suggest it to the writers, regardless of whether or not someone else actually wrote that into the script?

Also, Eppy, why is Paris iconic, and why is her status uniquely American? (I'm part genuinely curious because I've only been obsessed with Paris for a half a week, and part skeptical -- to me she seems like a relatively savvy tabloid icon, which may be a little different but no less pervasive than tabloid icons in the UK.)

(I will never be chosen to interview Ashlee, I guess. I'd have asked about the nosejob too. You have to. She's the one who, in Marie Claire, was profiled as working with kids on a project to demonstrate "That beauty comes in all shapes and sizes" and discussing eating disorders. And there she was on the cover with her innocuous, anonymous new nose. The dissonance screams at you. And she's the one who in "Shadow" said that the precondition for her finally being able to love her sister and parents was her realizing that it was "safe outside to come alive in [her own] identity." Not that she might not have good reasons for the nosejob, but she ought to say what they are. She's made the issue relevant. Not to mention that it's relevant to a celebrity anyway. Also, she'd probably have smart and interesting ideas on the subject. In Marie Claire she'd talked of various beauty trade-offs: as a teen, Jessica would use pliers to get into her jeans, while Ashless always wore stretch pants. If Ashlee wants to play volleyball, she can just put on a bra and go, whereas Jessica needs a fortified bra.)

Actually, now I'm wondering about a different question. What exactly makes Paris Hilton teenpop music? Because I think the question of who is listening to the album cuts to the essence of how the album is currently occuring. I know neither my sister, nor any of the other teenage girls who give me playlists, are listening to Paris Hilton. And Paris-haters, in my experience, are generally ignoring the album. After a sex video, an album is pretty inconsequencial, I'd guess.

Maybe we're just talking about the album here because it's a convenient place to discuss it, but I feel like it has less and less relevence to teenpop music every time I spin it. The teenpop I've been listening to has been emotionally ecstatic (which Hilton is decidedly not), clean-cut or a subversion of being clean-cut (while Hilton is unapologetically sexualized), and mostly lacking in irony with some exceptions (while Hilton sounds very ironic to my ears - not listening to Hilton, but the singing itself).

Not all teenpop is trying for ecstasy ("Because of You"* and "Shadow" and "Confessions of a Broken Heart," for instance), and of the stuff that does, the ecstasy is often pretty tepid, and the listeners seem fine with that. But I do know what you mean by Paris's sound not fitting. I'm not hearing any "irony," though. In what way is she drawing a deliberate contrast between an apparent and an actual meaning? Is "irony" the word you're looking for here? She may have plenty of meanings in addition to the most obvious ones, but nearly all music does that. (But I'm not yet paying that much attention to the words, so I could just be missing this.)

*Kelly is everything pop rather than teenpop per se, but she's super huge in the teenpop world, and "Because of You"

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=5534976&style=music&cart=385173247&BAB=E

(That is the wrong CD cover image, right?)

Actually, speaking of Lillix I am very confused about their album release so perhaps one of you Americans can clear this up. On Amazon it says Inside The Hollow was released in July but there's not even a tracklisting and it says it'll take 3 to 6 weeks to arrive, suggesting it is not actually released at all. Was the album originally meant for that date but put back? If so it seems strange that Amazon hasn't acknowledged this. I really want to hear the album but the cheapest I can find it to order to the UK is £16.99 and no sign of it yet on CD Wow.

Jessica, how does Hilary do it wrong? She's anonymous, but I don't think she's "wimpy," really, just...unobtrusive? Still distinct, but she gives herself over to just about any style you can throw at her. I agree that, er, poptastic-wise (as I think you're defining it), Lindsay is uneven (first less so than second album, but the more I listen to the second album, the more I like it. At least as recently as a few months ago, haven't listened since then except to "I Live for the Day").

Then there is lyrical irony as well. Like in "Stars are Blind" where she's simultaneously discussing and subverting a sort of pure love. "But you can see the real me inside" aafter "Some people never get beyond their stupid pride," implies this revelation of the true Paris. You're going to see Paris, beyond your prideful condemnations of her. But she immediately follows with "And I'm satisfied, oh no, ohh." So she's just gotten through telling us that we'll see beyond this oversexed image that we're used to, and follows immediately by changing the meaning of "see the real me inside," into a sexual phrase.

Plus, the title of the song: On one hand "Stars Are Blind" in context refers to the fates. The fates are blind, love is blind, Paris Hilton can fall in love with anyone because she's such a deep person. "Got a haert and soul and body," etc. But it also means that stars, like Paris Hilton, are literally blind. The subtext of the song is that she's literally seducing this good boy. "I'm perfect for you," reminds me of the scene in Evita where Evita keeps reassuring Peron that "I'll be good for you." So I hear this other story going on where the sexualized Hilton keeps undermining the potential good girl who wants a good guy. That she's literally blind to this condition makes it the complete opposite of the original meaning of "Stars are Blind." It isn't love that's blind, it's Paris Hilton that's blind.

I heard this a month ago and was really, really pleasantly surprised by it. Why didn't I venture into this thread before? I tend to avoid Rolling threads in general it seems. Don't know why. The size overwhelms me methinks.